McCord v. . Harrison-Wright Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.
It is contended by the defendant that the evidence of negligence is insufficient; that the plaintiff assumed the risk of his injury, and that for these reasons, or indeed, for either of them, his motion for nonsuit should have been allowed. It is said that the chisel referred to was a simple tool and, if defective, that its defect was obvious and as easily discoverable by the plaintiff as by the defendant.
In Hicks v. Manufacturing Co., 138 N. C., 319, the Court declared it to be the duty of an employer of labor to supply his employees, in the exercise of proper care, with machinery,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hicks v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Martin v. Highland Park Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- Dail v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Brewer v. RingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Mercer v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Watson v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Sams v. . Hotel RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Sams v. Hotel Raleigh, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Almond v. . Oceola Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Jordan v. . GlickmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941